lilgish said:

No I wouldn't if he/she was 13 years old.

TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said:

Why?

BlueNote

lilgish said:

That's not what I said. What I said was he has put himself in a position to be adjudged guilty of a sex crime because he has bought into the concept that He Is Michael Jackson and Conventional Standards of Conduct Don't Apply To Him(TM).

There's nothing inherently criminal about lightening your skin, trying to buy the Elephant Man's bones, etc. There is something terribly inappropriate about keeping such intimate physical company with prepubescent children. I never said it was criminal per se. But it treads a very thin line, a line off of which MJ nearly fell 12 years ago. But he kept on with such absurd behavior.

It may not be criminal, but it's wrong and you know it. You wouldn't do it. Too bad he did that, and perhaps even more.




This is the Michael Jackson trial. From a practical perspective, I wouldn't be surprised if that's what she did. But that has to be proven. It won't come out in this trial because a) the DA hasn't indicted the mother, and b) MJ sure won't argue that the Mom gave her the kid to molest and he jumped at the bit.

But if MJ took the bait, I don't feel a bit sorry for him, because he didn't have to.



No one's asking the man to be perfect. They're asking him not to get involved with that nonsense with young boys. That ain't too much to ask. Spend as much money as you want. Date whomever you want. Say what you want to say. But don't sleep with young boys! Honestly: is that too much to ask?



THIS world? Last I checked, MJ lives in this world. He is not a god.

And please, the situation is not really that complex. MJ slept with young boys. Some have accused him of molestation. If they're right, then MJ has no excuses and he should pay. If they're wrong, and MJ is the victim of a plot to extort large sums of money, then MJ is vindicated and from there on he better not ever mess with young boys again.

If the "complicated" situation you describe has to do with MJ's mental problems, then his counsel will raise an insanity or incompetency defense. Which they won't do.

Not every issue in this world is simple. There's a difference between analyzing factors and making excuses. MJ had a troubled childhood and has felt the weight of celebrity nearly crush him at times. But that doesn't give him any reason to do what he does with young boys, whether it's criminal or just plain eccentric. He was warned once. He didn't listen, because . . . aw, you know the rest.

It was only a matter of time.

namepeace said:

We'll disagree on that point. Were the deaths of John Lennon, Biggie, and Tupac so simple? Do you really know who Michael Jackson is or what he's become? What Peter Pan really is? Disney? Check out the day Mike got arrested and how it correlated to Disney? Uri Geller set up the Bashir interview, do you realize who he is and what he can really do? Why certain acts like the beatles, Elvis and Mike are huge in our culture at certain points in history? Why this trail is happening at this moment in time? There's nothing simple about these events.
[Edited 2/27/05 12:23pm]

lilgish said:

would you let Michael Jackson sleep in the same room or bed with your child?

namepeace said:

krayzie said:

It's only wrong if you're a paedophile.



Or he might actually have a skin disorder.

Cloudbuster said:

Let's just say it's not natural if you aren't related.

TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said:

What does that have to do with the post above?

dag said:

No amount of creative editing could have possibly made the physical contact with that boy any more unsettling than it was otherwise.



Come on, dag. I mean really. Come on.

1. So now MJ is the sane one in an insane world? Is that what you're saying?

2. Society does have a problem with a man who engages in questionable intimate and physical conduct with a prepubescent child. Why? Because it IS a problem. Does it mean that MJ should go to jail for what he's admitted to? Nope. But it DOES mean that MJ has a problem that needs to be remedied.

If you are so convinced of MJ's innocence, be it from a criminal or a societal perspective, answer me this. Would you let MJ climb into bed with YOUR child? BE HONEST.

3. Dag, those 2 situations could not have been MORE different. Mel Gibson didn't climb into bed with that boy, now did he? Mel Gibson didn't admit it to the whole town that he'd slept with several boys that age, now did he? All due respect, you're reaching.



If it resulted in severe treatment in prison, lifelong scorn, and potential bodily harm? Like, you know . . . a child sex abuse crime?

Yup.
[Edited 2/27/05 19:20pm]

speeddemon said:

Assuming you're right on the numbers, half the world thinks it is unnatural and/or sinful. There's a difference.

Common sense makes one say to self, "Self? If I sleep in the same bed with a prepubescent boy, I could a) be accused of a serious crime just by being here, b) affect the boy's mental disposition and attitudes towards intimacy, or c) have consequences and repercussions on me that I can't imagine."

But guess what MJ said to common sense? "Common sense? I'm MJ. I had a screwed up childhood. I am one of the most famous and wealthy people ever to walk the face of this earth. That entitles me to sleep with whomever I want. And I don't believe you, because I beat the rap 12 years ago and I'll beat it again."

dag said:

No one said that the doc ensures his guilt. But what he did and said on that doc makes him look very bad in front of a jury. I remember what Gavin said. And I hope for MJ's sake that 1) it's the truth, and 2) the jury buys it.

lilgish said:

And even after all of that, it doesn't change this simple fact.

MJ slept with young boys.

Now a young boy is accusing him of much more. Had he left them kids alone, none of this would have happened. He wouldn't have put himself in a POSITION to be set up, as you imply.

Since we're bringing other celebrities and movie characters into this discussion, I will quote Keanu Reeves from The Matrix Reloaded:

"Choice. The problem is choice."

Honestly, these comments sound more like rationalizations to avoid two simple facts, 1) MJ messed up big time, and 2) MJ may in fact go to jail for his mistakes.

lilgish said:

MJ sleeping with young boys has EVERYTHING to do with what you said, much of which has little relevance to MJ's perdicament.

namepeace said:

I'm addressing your simple, black and white, common sense view of the situation which boils down to those two points above. I recognize those and choose to recognize other factors involved in this event.

Co signed as well.

Yeah, MJ slept with those "boys". Interesting thing that everybody is ignoring is the fact that Gavin himself said that MJ slept ON THE FLOOR. It is interesting that the kids that did share his bed are actually the ones defending him (Culkin etc.)


That Gibson thing was a movie, so....

OK, let me tell you this, I don´t know where you are from, but the country whëre I come is quite different from the US. For example I as a child have shared a room and a bed with an adults many times, never been molested. I have been to US to work as a nanny. Looked after kids that were not mine, but after a certain time, you do love them as your own and treat them the same way. Why do ppl see sharing a room as a prove a sexual contact. i mean if I was supposed o have a sexual contact with everyone that I have ever shared a bed with I´d be everything from pedophile to homosexual.
Would I let my kid to sleep with MJ? If I knew him personally (like that family did) sure, as I would let my kids to sleep with anyone else, cause I as a child have slept different places as well. There´s nothing sick to it.
Is holding hands sick? Why should it be?
Damn where this world is going? Even holding hands is appropriate. Soon you won´t be able to touch someone without being accused of harrasment. I don´t know, but for example I do consider americans crazy in few ways. While being there, I found out that at kindergarden, teachers won´t change children diapers if they do not have the right papers for it. I mean that´s just unbelievable to me. They just leave the kid walking whole day in dirty diapers, than risking changing it "unprofessionally" and being accused of neglition. To me neglition is NOT changing a diaper.

dag said:

Disgusting...

If a 46 years old man (who faced accusations of child molestation in the past) in your neighborhood admited you that he sleeps with many little kids in the same bed, would you think the same way ??? Would you think it's Ok ??
I don't think so....

krayzie said:[quote]

dag said:

What is disgusting? The diaper story?

No, i wouldn't have an opinion. I would ask who this guy is and why the children were there.

BlueNote

BlueNote said:[quote]

krayzie said:

Double post edit.... oops
[Edited 2/28/05 5:55am]

BlueNote said:[quote]

krayzie said:

Are you serious?

I mean, I'm all up for keeping an open mind and all but you have to have some sort of standards in society.

I think you're kidding yourself if you believe you would give the man the benefit of the doubt were this an average man on the street. The fact is that it's your idol and you are making excuses for him.

You need have a set of standards and rules in society otherwise you just get anarchy. MJ flouted them. Even if nothing sexual happened between him and the boy, he needs to realise that his money and status do not give him a license to behave any which way he chooses.

And the bloody parents should have put a stop to the sleepovers the second they heard about them. There's no place for a small boy in a grown man's bed.

Yuk.

I'd still share a bed with Michael if he asked me to.

BTW with this statement I don´t know if you are realizing this, but you are questioning the MOTHER not MJ! So I don´t need to defend him in that way.
But if you wanna know - I do have a friend (she´s woman though, which for you will make a different story, I guess) who shares a bed with her 10 year- old- niece whenever she comes round. Because she WANTS to sleep with her aunt. I really don´t find it strange at all. I know you may argue that their family, but child-molestation happens within families as well.
Someone who has FACED allegations - I mean if that person was proven pedophile, hell no. But this is accusation. I personally was once arrested by accident by british police for breaking someones window. All the ppl who know me, know that it´s a total nonsence and had a great laugh when I was telling them my story. Do they think now that I am criminal? NO!




Adoreme, I do realize the danger of me loving MJ and me NOT wanting him to be guilty, that´s also why I do watch closely this case and so far (from what came to the public) I have not started doubting his innocence. Not SO FAR!


I don´t agree with this. You´re acting as if I was defending him for killing, stealing or something like that. And it is only since MJ´s case came about that ppl started thinking that sharing bed is inappropriate.

- NBC Today - Monday, February 28

On Foxnews they suggested the prosecution could admit that the boy's mother is indeed a lying, money-hungry low-life, arguing that this doesn't mean the boy is also lying.

Oh, and from the DrudgeReport: the boy testified in front of the Grand Jury that MJ taught and encouaged him to masturbate. Only problem, during a previous police interview he said on tape: "I know much more about sex than MJ".
[Edited 2/28/05 8:23am]

dag said:

Uh uh. Not true. I think you will find that most people feel that sharing a bed with a child who is not your own is not acceptable in today's society. You're seriously kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.

And what I was trying to say was in response to Bluenote's suggestion that he/she would not have an opinion on the matter were the same situation repeated with a man on his street. These are the sort of things that it is everyone's duty to "have an opinion" about. A society has to have ground rules, simple fact. MJ has lived his life as if they do not apply to him.

Sorry Dag, you know that I feel for you! It must be so difficult for the real fans to watch what is happening at the moment but seriously, honey, you cannot defend his decision to take Gavin into his bed with him.

To add to my previous comment - another evidence that should evidently make me doubt MJ´s innocence.

lilgish said:

No, you're addressing factors relating to the designs of others vis-a-vis MJ, and how to set hims up for personal and financial ruin. I recognize ALL of that. I recognize:

1. Bashir may have had designs on exposing MJ to the world as a freak, a weirdo and a pervert.

2. Uri Geller may have played a part in that.

3. The mother of the accused may have manufactured a slanderous story to take MJ for everything he owned.

4. The boy may be a pawn in the mother's game.

5. A sensationalist media, ravenous to capitalize on MJ's eccentricities, were just waiting to swoop in.

6. The DA covets an MJ conviction and will pursue it at all costs.

7. MJ could very well be INNOCENT.

Now. Considering all that. What does that change about the simple analysis?

Adoreme, you know I feel for you too and you´re right it is hard for his fans right now, so you guys plz understand our passion defending him, cause whether you understand it or not, some of us LOVE THAT GUY!

But PLZ do not twist the basic facts ppl. It was not MJ´s decision to sleep in his room, but GAVIN´s for god´s sake. I know Mj could have said no, he made a STUPID mistake, but should he pay for it spending 20 years in prison? Does it itself make him a criminal? In my country if he killed someone he´d get less. Gotta go guys .- unfortunately. I´ll continue my discussion with you tomorrow.

dag said:

Oh good grief. This is just so sad.

But nevertheless - Gavin was the child in the situation. MJ was the adult.

I wasn't suggesting that he should go to jail if he is found innocent of molestation. What was suggested was that if an ordinary Jo on your street was known for sleeping with pre-pubescent boys there would be an uproar. It shouldn't really be any different for MJ.

Maybe I missed something, but as far as i know MJ and the boy never slept in same bed. I'm not saying they didn't (or that it is very relevant), but MJ said they didn't (in the Bashir interview), the boy said they didn't (in the Bashir interview), and the boy (as far as i know) didn't say anything about it during his Grand Jury testimony. So maybe people shouldn't repeat it like it's a known fact.

Oh, and MJ arrived in court a few minutes ago for opening statements. Finally some real fireworks. He doesn't seem too worried imho:

[Edited 2/28/05 8:50am]

BlueNote (or someone else)

said:

1. Matters of individual lifestyles are, indeed, an individual thing. But there is a difference between individual proclivities and plain old right and wrong. A middle-aged man sleeping with prepubescent boys is wrong. Regardless of who he is. He can be one-of-a-kind and STILL be wrong.

2. Will this statement change if he's found to be guilty?

3. I can criticize him for ANYTHING if I wish. But he cannot be convicted without proof. I criticize him for knowingly putting himself in a position to be tried and convicted.




No one's ignoring that. In fact, what his defenders seem to ignore is that it is that very practice that could result in him being wrongly convicted. And it is a practice he should have ended 12 years ago.

It is clear you love MJ. So do I, for what his music has meant to me. But I ask you this: If MJ asked you your advice as to whether he should continue his sleepovers, and if MJ would have complied with your advice, WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE TOLD HIM? Remember, this is a) a hypothetical, and b) this is YOUR opinion.



I know, but you used it as an example.



Every child has slept with their parents, but there comes a time when the parents say, sleep on ur own, you're too old. And we're not talking about parents, or nannies. We're talking about a different situation.



Again, it all depends on context. You're drifting into different contexts than the one presented.



MJ has a large house, several staff members, and many bedrooms. He's not living in a shotgun shack with one bed. He is unrelated to your child. If he weren't MJ, just some rich, eccentric guy, and he wanted your kids to come over and spend the night with him, under these circumstances, would you?

Under these circumstances, if it were me, and MJ asked me that question, he'd better be fast.



There's holding hands in prayer, there's holding hands as a show of comfort and support, and then there's holding hands. America saw the way MJ interacted with that boy, and a lot of us were unsettled by what we saw. That doesn't mean MJ is per se guilty. But it did put him in a prime position to catch a case. Which brings me back to the 2 very simple points I made earlier: 1) MJ should have left them boys alone, and 2) had he done so, there would BE NO TRIAL.



I'm not saying Americans haven't been affected by the current climate of abuse convictions, allegations, etc. But none of that has anything what-so-ever to do with this case.